From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id SAA08094; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:48:52 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA07444 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:48:50 +0100 (MET) Received: from mail.davidb.org (adsl-64-172-240-129.dsl.sndg02.pacbell.net [64.172.240.129]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id hBUHmnv26875 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:48:49 +0100 (MET) Received: from davidb by mail.davidb.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1AbNyw-00056r-00; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 09:48:38 -0800 Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 09:48:38 -0800 From: David Brown To: dmitry grebeniuk Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Ocaml syntax. Message-ID: <20031230174838.GA19608@davidb.org> References: <1072152186.59938.30.camel@tylere> <20031223085259.GA2000@fistandantilus.takhisis.org> <20031223164721.GA9202@davidb.org> <1609002433.20031230101426@moldavcable.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1609002433.20031230101426@moldavcable.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 caml-list:01 grebeniuk:01 camlp:01 camlp:01 lazyness:01 terse:01 terse:01 ocaml:01 caml:01 dmitry:01 0200,:01 syntax:02 syntax:02 lazy:02 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 10:14:26AM +0200, dmitry grebeniuk wrote: > Quite interesting, and maybe it is true, but I have more simple theory. > First time I knew about revised syntax only when started to write > camlp4-extensions, and at that time I've used caml about one year. No > any note, nor even small remark about revised syntax was seen before > reading camlp4 documentation. Larry said right about impatience, lazyness > and hubris: most of us are too lazy to re-learn syntax of programming > language after using it enough time. In my brief time trying to use the revised syntax, I found it to be more cumbersome. The native syntax has a very terse feel to it. I think the inconsistencies actually help make it terse. Dave ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners